Mr v. Shivnath, Sr
Case Details
1 Civil Revision No. 173 of 1993 (R) … Against the judgment and order dated 17.06.1992, passed by the Subordinate Judge I, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1992. … United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … Petitioner -V e r s u s- M/s. D.P.S. Computers & Allied Product (P) Ltd. and another … Opp. Parties. … For the Petitioner : - Mr. M. Sohail Anwar, Sr. Advocate and M/s. A. Ahmed, A Hussain and S. Verma, Advocates. For the Respondent : - Mr. V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate and M/s. S. Shrivastav and K.K. Ambastha, Advocates. … P R E S E N T: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. … C.A.V. On : - 05.04.2013 Delivered On : 25/10/2013 ... P.P. Bhatt, J. The present revision application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 17.06.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1992, whereby the application of the petitioner made under Section - 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 regarding cancellation/setting aside the appointment of Shri H. K. Lal, Ex- Principal, Chhotanagpur Law College, Ranchi as sole arbitrator, has been rejected and the alternative prayer to allow the petitioner further time to appoint an arbitrator of their choice and to stay the further proceeding by the opposite party before the sole Arbitrator, has also been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) The opposite party no. 1 was engaged in manufacturing of computer stationery at Ranchi in the industrial area. The Canara Bank, Ranchi as a mortgagee and the opposite party no. 1 as mortgagor were jointly 'Insured' by the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner under 1/5 Policy No. 33201/01/1000/923/88 covering the period of 02.11.1988 to 01.11.1989 had insured the stock of paper, computer paper, carbon paper, chemicals finished or unfinished raw materials, etc. for a sum of Rupees 10 lakhs only. The risks or perils come under the policy were fire, R.S.O. explosion, etc. as per Fire Policy 'C' in accordance with terms and conditions of Fire Tariff. (iii) Similarly, under 1/5 Policy No.33201/01/7/33201/01/7/01924/88 covering the period of 02.11.1988 to 01.11.1989, the petitioner had insured the building, plant and machinery and Furniture, Fixtures and Fittings for the value of Rs.32 lakhs 5 thousand. The risk covered were fire, R.S.D. as per policy 'C'. The Bihar State Financial Corporation Ltd. was the mortgagee and the opposite party as mortgagor and as such, were jointly insured. (iv) On 05.07.1989, at about 10.30 PM, it is alleged that due to short- 2 circuit; fire broke out in the premises of the opposite party no. 1, wherein, insured goods and articles were kept. The opposite party informed the concerned Police Station and also to the petitioner. The petitioner, immediately, thereafter appointed a surveyor to inspect the factory and assess the loss, if any suffered by the opposite party no. 1. (v) On 8.8.1988, the representative of M/s. Mehta and Padamsey, surveyor
Legal Reasoning
along with the Director of the opposite party no.1, namely, Shri Pravin Kumar, carried out their joint inspection and recorded the observation, which was duly acknowledged by the parties. After holding several rounds of discussion with the insured, the surveyor had assessed the loss with regard to machinery at Rs.2,95,000/-. Initially the insured had raised objection to the estimate made by the surveyor. But it appears that ultimately, when a lump sum offer of Rs.2,95,000/- was made without any deduction on account of depreciation towards the final assessment of loss in respect of machinery, the opposite party no. 1, i.e. 'Insured' agreed and accepted it as full and final settlement. (vi) Similarly, M/s. Mehta and Padamsey Surveyors (P) Ltd. and A. K. Mukherjee conducted the survey of loss suffered by the opposite party no. 1 in respect of stock. The surveyors after examining all the relevant records and after preparing a joint inventory of the damages observed, which was jointly signed by the surveyor and the insured, assessed the loss at Rs. 7,54,865/-, which was agreed and accepted by the insured as full and final settlement of the claim. (vii) It is the case of the petitioner that towards the final payment of the above two claims as agreed between the parties, the opposite party received Rs.7,53,315 and Rs.2,98,750/- by cheques and acknowledged receipt of the said two cheques in full and final discharge of claims. The discharge vouchers were signed by him on 28.10.1991, as token of receipt of the above amount and also as a token of final discharge of the claims. The discharge vouchers were also jointly signed by the respective mortgagee i.e. Bihar State Financial Corporation, Ranchi and the Canara Bank, Ranchi. (viii) According to the petitioner, after signing of the disbursement voucher and on receipt of the cheque of the amount agreed upon, the claim finally stood discharged and the insurance policy of the Opposite party No. 1 stood automatically terminated and no further claim is pending against the Insurance Company. (ix) On 10.01.1992, Shri Bemki Prasad, Advocate, Ranchi served a notice to the petitioner demanding appointment of the arbitrator by the petitioner and informed that the opposite party No. 1 has already appointed, Mr. H. K. Lal, Ex-Principal, Chhotanagpur Law College, Ranchi as their arbitrator. It was also stated in the said notice that a dispute has arisen regarding payment of interest, 3 damages and lose of profit, on account of delay in settling the claim. It was also stated that in case of default to appoint Arbitrator within two months; Shri H. K. Lal will act as sole arbitrator and decide the dispute. (x) It has also come on record that during the pendency of this review the sole arbitrator Shri H.K. Lal has passed an award dated. 29-06-1992 and the execution case is also pending. 3. It appears that earlier the revision application filed by the Insurance Company against the dismissal of Misc. Case No. 20 of 1992 was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 05.07.1993. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred Civil Appeal No. 1678 of 1994, S.L.P. (C) No. 16399 of 1993 and the said S.L.P.s was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 07.03.1994 and accordingly, the matter was remanded to the High Court. The relevant abstract of the order is quoted hereinbelow:- “Special Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides. Two grievances were made before us by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Co. The first was that the appellant-Insurance Company had paid two amounts of Rs.2,98,750/- and Rs.7,53,615/- under the vouchers at pages 45 & 46 of the paper book dated 14.11.1991. The printed recital on these vouchers state that the payment is in full and final discharge of claims upon them as per the said particulars i.e. the particulars given in the voucher. On this basis it was said that the dispute was finally settled by payment and there was a valid discharge and hence there was no question of invoking clause 13 of the Contract for going to arbitration. The appellant had filed the petition in the Court of the Special Sub-Judge Ranchi, under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to prevent the sole arbitrator from entering upon arbitration and making an award. In the alternative it was prayed that in view of section 9 (b), proviso, the appellant should be given an opportunity to appoint their arbitrator, should the Court rule against them on the first point. It appears that the Court recorded the finding without any material or evidence placed before it to the following effect: “I find that the opp. Party signed on the disbursement vouchers only to receive the amount and not in full and final settlement of claims.” Counsel for the appellant rightly objects to this finding having been recorded without parties having had an opportunity to lead evidence in that behalf even if that was taken as a disputed fact. The High Court did not examine the matter from that point of view nor make a speaking order. We are of the opinion that this was not a matter which the High Court should have disposed of without recording reasons particularly when the finding recorded above was likely to fetter even the arbitrator. We do not desire to express any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the contention raised but, we think, if the Court were to enter upon that disputed fact, the parties should have had an opportunity to adduce evidence. That is not to say it is necessary for the Court to go into that factual aspect but if it did so it could not have recorded the finding without the parties being given an opportunity to adduce evidence. As regards the second contention also the High Court has not expressed any opinion. In the circumstances we feel that the proper course is to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law bearing in the mind the aforesaid two contentions urged before us. Once again we clarify that we do not express any opinion on either of the two contentions. We would only like the High Court to apply its mind on both the contentions and record a speaking order. The Appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (emphasis supplied)” 4 Thereafter, once again the said revision was heard and dismissed vide order dated 23rd May, 1995. The applicant/insurance company once again moved S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 22013 of 1996. The said S.L.P. was allowed and again the matter was remanded to the High Court as per the order dated 07th May, 1996, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant abstracts of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (C) No. 22013 of 1996 is reproduced hereinbelow : - “Leave granted. The impugned order dated 23rd May, 1995, passed by Narain Roy, J. of the Patna High Court in Civil Revision No. - 173 of 1993 purports to be in pursuance of the order dated 7th March, 1994 passed by this court in Civil Appeal No. - 1618 of 1994 in this very matter between the same parties at an earlier stage. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court is not in accordance with this Court’s order dated 7th March, 1994, when this matter had come up earlier to this Court. In Civil Appeal No. - 1618 in this court, one of the contentions of the appellant was that the payment made by the appellant to respondent No. - 1 was in full and final settlement of the entire claim and, therefore, there was in existence no dispute between them to confer jurisdiction on the arbitration to make any award. This court in its order dated 7th March, 1994 set aside the earlier order of the High Court stating that this point was required to be decided by the High Court giving reasons for its conclusion on this question of fact, and if, necessary the parties were also be given opportunity to adduce evidence on points. A perusal of the order dated 7th March, 1994 clearly indicates that while remitting the matter to the High Court it made plain that this was one of the points which had to be decided by the High Court after permitting the parties to adduce evidence, if any, and by giving reasons in support of the conclusion reached on this question of fact.
Decision
Admittedly, the impugned order made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is not in accordance with requirements, clearly specified in this court’s order dated 7th March, 1994. It is sufficient in for us to observe that the directions given in this court’s order dated 7th March, 1994 require to be complied with strictly and the matter has to be disposed of afresh in accordance therewith. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 23rd March, 1995 passed in Civil Revision No.173/93 is set aside and the High Court is required to decide the Civil Revision afresh in accordance with law as indicated above. We also direct that the award made in favour of respondent No.1 shall not be executed till the decision of the Civil Revision and it shall be subject to the final outcome thereof.” 4. In view of the above order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court vide its order dated 01.09.2003, passed the following order :- “The direction of the Apex Court referred to above is very clear whereby the parties to this case have to adduce only regarding the disputed facts which is to the effect as to whether the opposite party has signed on the disbursement voucher only to receive the amount and not in full and final settlement of the claim. There is no direction of the Apex Court to give an opportunity to adduce the evidence regarding the appointment of Shri H.K. Lal as Arbitrator in the said arbitral proceeding as well as, as to whether the petitioner had participated in the said arbitral proceeding or not. Viewed thus, I see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for according him any 5 opportunity of adducing evidence on the question of appointment of Shri H.K. Lal as Arbitrator for the opposite party as well as, as to whether the petitioner has participated in the said arbitral proceeding or not. In view of the direction of the Apex Court and with the consent of both the parties that the evidence has to be recorded in this case in respect of the disputed fact referred to above, I direct the learned court below to record the evidence of the parties to this case and remit the evidence so recorded including documentary evidence, if any, admitted into evidence to this Court as early as possible but positively within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 15th of September 2003 with their witnesses for recording their evidence. Let the lower court record of Misc. Case No. 20 of 1992 be sent to the court of Sub-Judge I, Ranchi forthwith with a copy of this order. Let this case be listed under the heading “For Hearing” immediately soon after the receipt of the record of lower court below along with the depositions of the witnesses recorded by him.” 5. In the present case, following documentary evidence are on record: - List of documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner Exhibit -1 Exhibit -2 Exhibit -3 Exhibit -4 Exhibit -4/1 Exhibits -5 and 5/1 Exhibits – Disbursement claim voucher for Rs. 2,98750 in original without objection. Disbursement claim voucher for Rs. 7,53,615 without objection. Signature of Sri D. R. Kundan on the letter dated 29.10.91, without objection. Signature of Sri D. R. Kundan on the letter dated 14.11.91, without objection Signature of Sri D. R. Kundan on the letter dated 14.11.91, without objection Signature of Shree Sanjeev Kumar on Fire Policy, without objection Signature of Salendra Narayan Singh on subject to agreed on Bank clause, 6 and 6/1 Exhibits -7 without objection Signature of Praveen Kumar on disbursement claim voucher, without and 7/1 Exhibit - 8 Exhibit -9 Exhibit - 10 Exhibit -11 Mark X objection Signature of Arvind on disbursement claim voucher, without objection Endorsement and Signature of A. S. Verma, with objection Signature of V. Hariharan on disbursement claim voucher Signature of M.K. Doshim, with objection Surveyor report dated 15.09.1990 Lists of documents exhibited by the opposite parties Exhibit -A Signature of Shri S.C. Mishra on original inspection report dated 10.7.89, Exhibit -B Exhibit -C without objection Original Inspection report dated 10.7.89, without objection Certified copy of judgment in case No. 128/41 and 129/42 of 1992-94, without objection 6. In the present case, petitioner examined altogether four witnesses. A.W -1 Rajesh Kumar He was the Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Company at Divisional Office, Ranchi. He has proved the Surveyor report dated 15.09.1990 which is marked as Exhibit – X (Para -10) and he 6 further deposed that two discharge vouchers one of rupees 2,98,750 and other of rupees 7,53,615 was made by him on the basis of claim assessment made by surveyor. He identified his writing and signature in the disbursement voucher which is marked as Exhibit 1 and 2 (para -12). He also proved a letter written to M/s DPS Computer by which two numbers of discharge voucher were send for signature and return thereafter. The signature on the letter is marked Exhibit 3. He has proved the Signature of Sri D.R.Kundan on the carbon copy of letter dated 14.11.91 by which the cheques were sent to the Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation Ltd. and Manager Cenara Bank and the same were marked as Exhibit 4 and 4/1 (para-17 and 18). He further deposed that the opposite party received the amount in full and final settlement. Satyendra Narayan Singh was the Assistant Manager, A.W -2 Satyendra Narayan Singh United Bank of India, Ranchi Branch during 1988 to 1991. He deposed that two policies were issued from his company one in the name of Bihar State Financial Corporation and M/s DPS Computers and other in the name of Canara Bank, Ranchi and M/s DPS Computers. He identified the writing and signature of Divisional Manager, Sri Sanjeev Kumar on fire policy which is marked as annexure – 5 and 5/1. He further deposed that alongwith the policies one certified copy of a typed document under the provision of fire tariff is attached and on that document he identified his signature which was exhibited as 6 and 6/1. He further identified the signature of the Managing Director of DPS Computers and Allied Product Pvt. Praveen Kumar and also the signature of the Divisional Manager of B. S. F. C. Arbind Jha on the disbursement claim voucher which was marked as Ext. 7 and 8. He further deposed that the then Divisional Manager, B.S.F.C. , Ranchi Sri A. S. Verma also certified the signature of Sri Arbind Jha and identified the writing and signature of Sri A. S. A.W.-3 Sanjeev Kumar A.W.–4 Dhani Ram Kundan 7 Verma on the back of disbursement voucher which is marked as annexure -9 with objection. In Exhibit – 2 he identified signature of Managing Director DPS Computers and Allied Product Pvt. Sri Praveen Kumar and Manager Canara Bank Sri V. Hariharan which were marked as Exhibit – 7/1 and 10. He further deposed that the signature of Sri V. Hariharan was certified by Sri N. K. Dosi in his presence. The signature of Sri N. K. Dosi on the back of Exhibit-2 was identified which were marked a Exhibit - 11 with objection. In his cross-examination he deposed that policies of DPS Computers and Allied Product Pvt., BSFC and Canara Bank was issued by him. He deposed that ext. 5 and 5/1 was certified by him and Exhibit. 6 and 6/1 is document of agreed bank clause. He identified the contents of Exhibit 1 and 2, and deposed that the claim was settled and the payment was received in full and final settlement and nothing was due. He was the Senior Divisional Manager in the company from 1985 to 1992. He deposed that during his tenure his company issued two policies to DPS Computers and Allied Product Ltd. and its financers. He further deposed that for assessment of damage one surveyor namely Arunachalam was appointed. After report of surveyor, according to direction of Regional Office lose voucher was made and Director of DPS Computer, Sri Praveen Kumar made his signature on the lose voucher in full and final settlement. He also deposed that Sri Praveen Kumar made his signature without any pressure. He further deposed that lose voucher was sent to the financer for signature and when the same was returned after signature, on 14.11.1991 cheques was given to the parties. After two – three months the Insurance Company received a notice regarding arbitration and the same was answered. In misc. No. – 20/1992, Insurance Company requested for appointment of his own arbitrator but the same was rejected thereafter the company came to Hon’ble High Court. 8 O.P.W.No– 1 Arbind Jha He was the Branch Manager of BSFC from June 1988 to Sep 1992. He deposed that Opp. Party No. – 1 had taken loan of Rs. 2,50,0000/- lakhs from BSFC for building plant and machinery. Opp. Party No. – 1 had also taken loan from Canara Bank for working capital. At the time of accident dues of BSFC upon Opp. Party No. -1 was about 27 – 28 lakhs. He further deposed that the payment was made to the Opp. Party No. 1 as part payment and not as full and final settlement. A committee was constituted by the Managing Director RIADA for inquiry of the incident and the report was submitted on 10.07.1989. The signature of the Deputy Manager was identified which was marked as exhibit – A. In his cross examination he identified his signature in Exhibit – 1 and deposed that in the said document he has not written “part payment” but the officer of the company told him that if he would protest then nothing will be paid. He has also an industry in the industrial area of O.P.W.No. 2 Mritunjay Prasad Pandey Kokar. He deposed that on 28.10.1991 he had gone alongwith Praveen Kumar at the Office of Divisional Manager of Insurance Company. He further deposed that Divisional Manager of Insurance Company told Praveen Kumar that if he would not made signature in the disbursement voucher then nothing will be paid thus the signature was made by Praveen Kumar under pressure. He was the Assistant Development Officer of O.P.W. No. 3 Ashok Kumar Srivastav RIADA. He deposed that a committee was O.P.W. No. 4 Praveen Kumar constituted for inspection of the incident and in the report he identified the signature of all the members which were marked as Exhibit –B. He is the Managing Director of the Opp. Party No. – 1. He deposed that he made claim of Rs. 25 lakhs and 10 lakhs respectively against two policies. He further deposed that on 28.10.1991 he went to the office of Divisional Manager alongwith his friend Mritunjay Pandey. He further deposed that the then 9 Divisional Manager told him that if he will not made signature on the disbursement voucher then nothing will be paid. He also deposed that he made the signature on the disbursement voucher under pressure of Divisional Manager. He further deposed that in both the policies there was an arbitration clause. He further deposed that Exhibit 5 and 5/1 are not the true copies of the policies and in these exhibits terms and condition has not been mentioned. He also deposed that Exhibit. 6 and 6/1 are not correct document. He also deposed that the signature of the officers of BSFC and Canara Bank were not made in his presence. He further deposed that both the disbursement vouchers were not sent to him by forwarding letter. Ext. 3 is a concocted document. He also deposed that after signature of disbursement vouchers he invoked arbitration clause and sent a legal notice on 10.01.1992 to the insurance company and informed that Sri H. K. Lal, Ex. Principal C. Law College will be arbitrator of Opp. Party no. 1 and also requested the applicant company to appoint its arbitrator and if it fails then Sri H. K. Lal, will be the sole arbitrator. Again on 01.04.1992 he informed the applicant company that Sri H. K. Lal will be sole arbitrator. Sri H. K. Lal started arbitrations as a sole arbitrator and Sri N. K. Ray Advocate and Divisional Manager, Sri Kundan Jee and other officer use to appear in arbitration proceeding. Sub-Judge -7 Ranchi has ordered to make the award as rule of the court. Certified copy of the order passed by Sub- judge – 7 is marked as ext. – C. He said that both the disbursement vouchers were not singed in full and final settlement. In his cross examination he admitted in para -65 that exhibit 7 and 7/1 are his own signature. He deposed in para- 66 that he was not allowed to write part payment or under protest on disbursement vouchers. He further deposed that he came to know about the payment of cheque after 10 20-25 days of the signature. 7. Now the aforementioned evidence on record is require to be appreciated in view of observation and directive given by the Hon’ble Apex Court by formulating following two issues:- “(i) Whether the opposite party had signed the disbursement voucher only to receive the amount and not in full and final settlement of the claim and if yes then whether the opposite party was competent to invoke clause 13 of the contract of arbitration for referring the dispute to the arbitration? (ii) If the first issue is decided against the petitioner then in that case whether the petitioner insurance company is required to be given an opportunity to appoint his own arbitrator as per proviso to section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act? 8. So far the first issue is concerned; the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Sohail Anwar, appearing for the petitioner referred the disbursement claim vouchers (Exhibit-1 and 2) and pointed out the printed recital in the voucher “received from UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. the aforesaid sum in full and final discharge of claims upon them”. He further submitted that the disbursement claim voucher of Rs.298750/- was duly marked as Exhibit- 1 and the signature of the Managing Director DPS Computer was exhibited as Exhibit- 7 and the Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation as marked as Exhibit- 8 without objection. The disbursement claim voucher of Rs.753615/- was marked as Exhibit- 2 and the signature of Managing Director of D.P.S Computer was marked as Exhibit- 7/1 and the Signature of Manager Accountant was marked as exhibit 10 without objection. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the payment had been accepted in full and final discharge of its claim hence the arbitration proceeding started by the sole arbitrator Shri H. K. Lal cannot be sustained in eye of law. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also submitted that the legal notice dated 10-01-1992 was an afterthought in order to make up a case and is not bonafide. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the order dated 01.09.2003 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the matter, the only question to be decided is as to whether the opposite party had singed the disbursement voucher only to receive the amount and not in full and final settlement of the claim. It is further submitted that under provision of section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the onus of proof lies on the Opposite Party No. 1 to prove the contention raised by him. 10. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Sohail Anwar, appearing for the petitioner also submitted that reference should be made to sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act in the present case. Under the said provisions, oral evidence is excluded in the face of 11 documentary evidence, and hence the documentary proof of Disbursement (Claims) vouchers (Exhibit - 1 & 2), having been signed by the opposite party without making any objection, are the conclusive proof of the opposite party received the amount from the Insurance company in full and final settlement of the claim amount. By referring Clauses (a) and (b) of Exhibits 6 & 6/1 it is further submitted that the agreed Bank clause between the parties, bars the Opposite Party No. - 1 completely from raising the claim that the amount received was not in full and final settlement of the claim of the Opposite Party. 11. The learned Senior counsel, Mr. Sohail Anwar, appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the co-insured namely the Canara Bank and B.S.F.C. did not make any objection nor invoked the arbitration clause. They were satisfied with the claim settled and payments made thereafter. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Government company and dealt in the manner which usually followed for settlement of claims in the normal course of business i.e. inspection by the Government of India approved surveyors as per the norms and submitted the detailed report (Mark X for identification), thereafter settlement of claim was approved by the Head office in the normal course of business. It is further submitted that no allegation of personal malafide or even unfair play by any officer of the petitioner is made, as such making a presumption of law that the petitioner dealt in the matter in the normal course and without malafide, ill will or abnormality. It is further submitted that the allegation of coercion is not proved by any documentary or reliable oral evidence particularly in view of the fact that objection or protest was made after more than two months and perhaps thereafter on some legal advice, a belated claim for additional payment is alleged to have been made. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following judgments:- (i) M/s. P. K. Ramaiah & Co. Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corporation reported in 1994 (3) Supp SCC 126, wherein, it is held that the full and final satisfaction was acknowledged by a receipt in writing and the amount was received unconditionally. Thus there is accord and satisfaction by final settlement of the claims. The subsequent allegation of coercion is an afterthought and a devise to get over the settlement of the dispute. There is no existing arbitrable dispute for reference to the arbitration. (Para - 8) (ii) Nathani Steels Ltd. Vs. Associated Constructions reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 324, wherein, it is held that once parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of any dispute or difference arising under a contract and that dispute or the difference is amicalby settled by way of a final settlement by and between the parties, unless the settlement is set aside in proper proceedings, it cannot lie in the mouth of one of that parties to the settlement to spurn it on the ground that it was a mistake and to proceed to invoke the arbitration clause. It was not open to the respondent unilaterally to treat the settlement as non est and 12 proceed to invoke the Arbitration clause (Para - 3). (iii) M/s. Krishna Associates Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. & Others reported in 2001 (1) JCR 95 (Jhr.), wherein the fact is that the petitioner therein, received all his claim on 23.01.1996. The respondents also refunded the earnest money and security money along with the final bill. The petitioner after receiving the amount in full and final settlement of the claim started writing letters that he is entitled to claim suffered by it due to the equipments and labourers sitting idle for 217 days. After considering the facts of the case, it is held the petitioner after having received the amount in full and final settlement of the claim cannot be permitted to raise additional claim and demanded reference of dispute for arbitration. (iv) Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. Baidyanath Mandal & Others reported in AIR 1972 Patna 29, wherein, it is held that the Court has wide powers under section 9(b) of arbitration act, 1940 in setting aside the appointment of an arbitration (Para - 8) 12. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for the opposite party submitted that contention regarding practicing of coercion and undue influence has very well been proved by producing oral as well as documentary evidences. He has referred to the inspection report dated 10.7.89 submitted by the committee constituted by RIADA (Exhibit-A) and submitted that the committee in its report assessed the damage of Rs.2496000/- for printing machine and Rs.870000/- for damaged raw materials. 13. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for the opposite party further submitted that whatever payment has been made was only part payment and cannot be treated as discharge of whole claim of the opposite party. The learned Senior Counsel of the opposite party further submitted that the signature under the disbursement claim voucher was made under coercion and undue influence hence the same cannot be said to be binding upon the opposite party. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party also submitted that the contents of exhibit 1 & 2 have not been proved by the petitioner as required under the law and therefore the submission of the petitioner that the payment are towards full and final settlement is not tenable. He further submitted that even if the document is fully proved and become admissible the same could not ipso facto prove the contents of the document. To support his above submission the learned Senior Counsel referred the judgment